GOP Unity Slips on ICE
Some congressional Republicans are carefully, cautiously, equivocally mad.
Cracks in the coalition?
In the Trump era, it’s extraordinarily rare for elected Republicans to voice clear moral objections to the actions of the administration. Doing so is virtually a form of career suicide.1 But if you develop an ear for the subtleties of the Republican congressional patois, you can start to pick up an awful lot about how much disapproval is being quietly expressed within GOP circles—including when some of them have reached some kind of breaking point.
The killing of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents in Minnesota on Saturday, as well as the administration’s false, accusatory, and easily debunked account of the incident, has pushed some GOP lawmakers over the edge.
House and Senate Republicans have broken party decorum and called for investigations into the shooting and even for ICE to leave Minnesota. Committee chairmen in both chambers have demanded that agency officials swiftly report to Capitol Hill for questioning.2
“Well, right now the video looks pretty damning,” Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), who is no moderate, said in an interview. “Obviously, we have to wait to get all the videos in before we make a final conclusion.”
“A lot of these ICE officials or Border Patrol people are not prepared for this sort of thing,” Grothman added. “We have people coming from far and wide to demonstrate and disrupt things, which is just a recipe for disaster. But I think in the future, the Department of Homeland Security is going to have to do a better job of educating their people to make sure this sort of murder doesn’t result.”
Sens. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) each called for an investigation into Pretti’s killing. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a former Homeland Security Committee chairman, said he was “troubled” by Pretti’s killing, adding, ”As an attorney and former federal prosecutor, I believe a thorough investigation is necessary—both to get to the bottom of these incidents and to maintain Americans’ confidence in our justice system.”
“We must have a transparent, independent investigation into the Minnesota shooting, and those responsible—no matter their title—must be held accountable,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said. “Officials who rush to judgment before all the facts are known undermine public trust and the law-enforcement mission.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) went so far as to call the killing a violation of the Second Amendment, an angle that remains too sharp for most of his Republican colleagues to pick up.
Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called a hearing for DHS oversight and requested testimony from acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Border Patrol Commissioner Rodney Scott, and Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow. A hearing is set for February 10. Across the Capitol, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, demanded testimony from the same officials. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March—still quite a ways away.
Enough GOP lawmakers have spoken up about the Pretti killing that their colleagues who have remained silent no longer have the cover normally afforded by moving with the political herd. The most notably silent Republicans are in the party’s House and Senate leadership. In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has been mostly offline since posting about meeting with Erika Kirk on Saturday; he has not posted about Pretti. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) did not weigh in on the shooting, but called Trump’s deployment of White House border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota Monday “a positive development.”
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference, coauthored an op-ed for Newsmax with fellow Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) declaring victory for Trump’s approach to immigration policy in his first year. The op-ed, published yesterday, did not mention Minnesota, and McLain hasn’t posted a link to it on any of her social channels.
A Thune aide said the House-passed funding package, which includes support for ICE without any meaningful reforms, would move forward for a vote this week, despite widespread Democratic opposition. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chair of the Appropriations Committee, brought the package to the floor Monday and warned against the partial government shutdown that would ensue if it were to be blocked.
“Let me just say that I hope we can come together in a constructive way to get this done and to ensure that we do not lurch into a dangerous and detrimental government shutdown,” Collins said, highlighting the parts of the bill that have nothing to do with the administration’s immigration enforcement.
The past few weeks in Minnesota might not end up being the Stalingrad of Trump’s mass deportation effort, but the episode could result in at least some meaningful reforms if Democrats demand them in exchange for their votes to fund the government. Their success will in part depend on how serious Republicans are about their concerns over Pretti’s killing and the broader use of force by ICE and the Border Patrol. It will also largely depend on whether Democrats are willing to endure another shutdown to achieve their policy (or political) goals.
Italian ICE
The violent presence of ICE and Border Patrol agents in Minnesota has broken media containment, and news of the Good and Pretti killings has started to reach normal people who don’t usually pay much attention to politics. The story of what’s been going on in Minneapolis has even gone international. I follow the Italian press, mostly to have something to read each morning to practice the language. Lately, I’ve been taken aback by the degree to which ICE activities in the United States have come to dominate Italian news.
Recently, there have been two big ICE stories that directly involve Italians. The first happened over the weekend, when ICE agents in Minneapolis surrounded a team of Italian journalists from the RAI television network and threatened them for reporting on the officers’ activities.
When ICE vehicles boxed in journalists Laura Cappon and Daniele Babbo, an officer approached their car to say, “We are going to break out your window and extract you from the vehicle.”
“This is the only warning,” said another ICE officer. “If you keep following us, we will break your window and we will pull you out of the vehicle.”
The other ICE story Italians have been fixated on is the presence of ICE officers at the upcoming Winter Olympic games in Cortina and Milan. It is not out of the ordinary for federal agencies to provide security support at the Olympics and other major international events. But ICE’s potential presence at the games has Italians up in arms. The outcry has gotten intense enough that Italian politicians have started to publicly demand that the American agents don’t cause trouble.
According to Corriere della Sera, Lombardy Governor Attilio Fontana said, “Their presence is limited to acting as bodyguards for Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.”
Corriere della Sera also reported that Fontana backtracked his statement in the next breath, saying, “I have no idea whether they will arrive or not, it’s not the region’s responsibility. . . . My comment was merely a hypothetical one regarding their potential responsibilities in Italy.”
The Associated Press confirmed Tuesday that ICE will indeed provide security for the U.S. delegation, which will include Vance and Rubio.
Milan Mayor Giuseppe Sala said on a local radio show that ICE is not welcome in the city, adding, “This is a militia that kills, a militia that enters into the homes of people, signing their own permission slips. It is clear they are not welcome in Milan, without a doubt.”
Don’t sweat it
I’m a big fan of Vanessa Friedman’s ongoing series at the New York Times style section in which she answers readers’ questions about clothes. This week’s topic was particularly good: Is it acceptable to wear a sweatshirt to work?
The presumption is that this was a question meant solely for jobs in an office setting, where custom and decorum would hold sweatshirts to be unusual attire. But there is a lot of variety in the garments that go by this name today. The type of sweatshirt matters. For instance, a fine wool quarter-zip is not as casual as a pilling cotton hoodie from your college alma mater.
For these and other considerations, Friedman writes that she cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question as stated:
Whether you like it or not, and no matter how fancy they may be, sweatshirts are essentially coded casual and youthful. Even student-y, much like the backpack. They are not generally coded corporate, even if they have a corporate logo on the front. . . .
If you want to try a sweatshirt in the office, dressing it up is crucial. Wear it with tailored pants, a blazer and sophisticated shoes and jewelry. The point is to make it look as little like a sweatshirt as possible—which may take more . . . well, work, than it is worth.
This makes sense as far as it goes, but I would put an even greater emphasis on the importance of context for making a good decision in this area. For example, you would look very out of place wearing a sweatshirt on Capitol Hill or at most law firms. Further, I think it’s good to avoid the risk of dressing down. Only take risks in dressing up. I mean, come on: You don’t want to be mistaken for Mark Zuckerberg or Nicolás Maduro, do you?
Just ask Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. There are others.
In the early years of Trump’s first term, berating cabinet officials was a common way for some Republicans in Congress to let off steam without directly criticizing the president.
"GOP Unity Slips on ICE." Your title wins the internet today.
I’ve just glanced through this. I cannot imagine being a Republican at this point in time. Saying nothing while human beings are being kidnapped, maimed, and killed is being complicit in evil. What joy or vindication these individuals feel is beyond me. It truly is.